I think there is some PJ not BJ, too... and the rest are about all matters Lewinski not just whether or not they had "some kind" of sex.
That would be true of the OTHER deflection - that he RETURNED the originals. Why two stories? That defeats the point doesn't it?
Gibbyup, I asked a simple question that you are dodging. I am really curious why you beleive lying about sex to a Grand Judy is an impeachable offense. Even you can't justify your answers with a straight face about the Arksas BAR association or the weak judicial argument you made. I'm not asking why others came to their conclusion...why do YOU feel it was a justified course of action? I haven't stated a single thing in this thread about why Clinton was impeached. I'm simply asking you why you felt it was justified.
the issue isn't what you lied about to the grand jury, it's the fact of lying and the forum. and it wasn't lying about sex, it was a sexual harrasment case.
<b>kros I asked a simple question that you are dodging. I am really curious why you beleive lying about sex to a Grand Judy is an impeachable offense.</b> This is more complex than just lying about sex. If it had been Ruth Bader Ginsburg rather than Monica Lewinski, we might not have had a case. Oh, but then there's Paula Jones... <b>Even you can't justify your answers with a straight face about the Arksas BAR association or the weak judicial argument you made. </b> My answer about Arkansas is right on; my face is always straight. The state of Arkansas had enough of a problem with what he did that they disbarred him, IIRC. <b>I'm not asking why others came to their conclusion...why do YOU feel it was a justified course of action?</b> He lied up and down and side-to-side. Clinton was a bad actor who God or the Devil handed the wheel of this ship of state in one of her most prosperous eras. Lucky dog. Yes, the impeachment was politically motivated but it wasn't without due cause. I haven't stated a single thing in this thread about why Clinton was impeached. I'm simply asking you why you felt it was justified.[/QUOTE]
So you are answering for Giddyup now? Ok. First, it wasn't a sexual harrasment case. It was two consensual adults. No charges were ever filed against the president by Lewinski. So back to lying about sex to a Grand Jury. You feel that is an impeachable offense...lying to a Grand Jury. Why is it an impeachable offense?
Is this your final answer? Seriously. Clinton was impeached because he was a "bad actor who God or the Devil handed the wheel...?"
No, my final answer was the articles of impeachment that I posted. That proves that Clinton was a bad actor. basso is welcome to chip in wherever he so chooses.
[/QUOTE] At least you can admit this. The entire matter began and ended based on politics and nothing else. The GOP couldn't stand to see Clinton steering the ship (to use your analogy) during one of her most prosperous periods and decided to be as vicious, vindictive, and vitriolic as they could be. If Clinton's crime rises to the level of an "impeachable offense," then GWB should be crucified (figuratively) for the lies he (and his minions) told.
Except for the fact that if you lie you lose credibility. Why not just say you gave them back after copying them to protect your source? Aren't conspiracy theories fun?
C'mon, Giddyup. Everything the government does isn't necessarily right. We are allowed to form our own opinions about things. I'm asking YOU why you think it is impeachable. I'm not asking you to link a government website full of facts and figures.
Interesting answer. I suspect that lots of people lie about sex under oath as well, especially in a sexual harassment case, yet that didn't seem to get a pass from you. For reference, the only test for impeachment is if a person commits "high crimes or misdeanors". Clinton committed one or the other by lying to a grand jury. For reference, lying to Congress, under any circumstance, is illegal. This situation would qualify as a "high crime or misdeanor" as much as, or more so, than Clinton's lie - this was government related, and related directly to Congress's ability to determine whether to authorize war. So I still ask the question you chose not to answer earlier - if Bush is determined to have lied to Congress, do you believe he should be impeached? If not, do you believe there should be any penalty.
See Giddyup, you are even getting some help on the correct answer to this question. It truely is a simple question. I'd still like to hear YOUR answer, without the technical mumbo jumbo, about how lying about sex to a Grand Jury is a "high crime."
<b>krosfyah C'mon, Giddyup. Everything the government does isn't necessarily right. We are allowed to form our own opinions about things.</b> I think Clinton lied to the Grand Jury. He's a lawyer and the Chief Executive Officer of the US. He lied about things that he did or did not do. <b>I'm asking YOU why you think it is impeachable. I'm not asking you to link a government website full of facts and figures.</b> The reason I linked to the verbatim Articles of Impeachment is because I wanted to prove that the BJ word was not in there. Is the word sex even in there? I'm just tired of hearing that he got impeached because he got a BJ... with a "Good for him!" thrown in...
<b>Major Interesting answer. I suspect that lots of people lie about sex under oath as well, especially in a sexual harassment case, yet that didn't seem to get a pass from you.</b> Who (besides Clinton) didn't get a pass from me? Since he's the presdent of the US, he should take these matters more seriously. <b>For reference, the only test for impeachment is if a person commits "high crimes or misdeanors". Clinton committed one or the other by lying to a grand jury.</b> I guess in the end his crimes weren't "high" enough... <b>For reference, lying to Congress, under any circumstance, is illegal. This situation would qualify as a "high crime or misdeanor" as much as, or more so, than Clinton's lie - this was government related, and related directly to Congress's ability to determine whether to authorize war.</b> The difficulty is/will be in proving that someone "lied" rather than provided "bad information." Lying requires demonstraton of prior intent. <b>So I still ask the question you chose not to answer earlier - if Bush is determined to have lied to Congress, do you believe he should be impeached? If not, do you believe there should be any penalty.</b> If Bush is proven to have "lied to Congress" I have no problem with impeachment proceedings.
